I don't think you're being particularly honest here. Several posters have taken issue with you claiming the accusations as fact and there have been a number of discussions about it. This thread would probably be less than half as long if you hadn't done so. But if you're backpedalling now and no longer trying to claim it's true then I guess we can move on

The stories are clearly true as Ferrari are under investigation, some of the conclusions however are unproven such as some kind of deal was done with Ferrari.

Maybe Ferrari said that the wires supply a seat heater to keep Vettel's bum nice and cosy, if you get my drift?

Maybe Ferrari did give an explanation that still left the stewards scratching their heads, it seems complicated enough for the necessity of a secondary sensor.

It just sounds like made up nonsense tbh, where did you hear it? As if the FIA are incapable of following where a wire goes to and from.

If the FIA really didn't know what the wires were for they can just remove them on the spot if Ferrari's explanation/demonstration wasn't good enough, no need for any head scratching. I thought the extra sensor was for the extra output from Ferrari's split battery design?

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Are the FIA incapable of asking what the wires were for or Ferrari incapable of replying?

They are probably scared of getting electrocuted.

The story goes that they think that it is such a complicated cheating system, that the FIA doesn't understand it. So obviously illegal I guess...

What one reads on internet gets ridiculous as time goes on, no wonder the world is getting dumber.

The specs of the system is submitted to the FIA for scrutiny also the FIA has the power to ask for explanation of anything they don't understand.

If they understand it then why the need to fit a secondary sensor?

Because Mercedes just publicly pointed out that the split battery could be abused in this way. If the FIA didn't then slap a sensor on it then Ferrari can just go ahead and do it even if they weren't before obviously.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

same source also says that the FIA has specifically stated there is nothing illegal about the Ferrari architecture, before some take the above and draw the inevitable 2+2=5 conclusions

Nice, so in theory it just takes a delusional and/or malicious rival team to have their opponent hampered by having to carry extra weight in the form of an extra sensor to be super duper sure they're not doing anything illegal?

I actually heard that they found wires which they had no idea what they were for and that's why they felt the need for a secondary sensor.

The nerve of them having wires in their cars, the least they could do is label them clearly

I don't think you're being particularly honest here. Several posters have taken issue with you claiming the accusations as fact and there have been a number of discussions about it. This thread would probably be less than half as long if you hadn't done so. But if you're backpedalling now and no longer trying to claim it's true then I guess we can move on

The stories are clearly true as Ferrari are under investigation, some of the conclusions however are unproven such as some kind of deal was done with Ferrari.

The only thing that's true is that the FIA is investigating and if that's what you had said initially we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But it's difficult to interpret things like "Well specifically they were using it to cheat in qualifying " as anything other than you making things up I'm afraid. If you didn't do things like that the conversations would go a lot more smoothly

I don't think you're being particularly honest here. Several posters have taken issue with you claiming the accusations as fact and there have been a number of discussions about it. This thread would probably be less than half as long if you hadn't done so. But if you're backpedalling now and no longer trying to claim it's true then I guess we can move on

The stories are clearly true as Ferrari are under investigation, some of the conclusions however are unproven such as some kind of deal was done with Ferrari.

What story is true?

And by conclusions you mean baseless rumours like with the extra oil tank that was treated as fact last year.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Maybe Ferrari said that the wires supply a seat heater to keep Vettel's bum nice and cosy, if you get my drift?

Maybe Ferrari did give an explanation that still left the stewards scratching their heads, it seems complicated enough for the necessity of a secondary sensor.

It just sounds like made up nonsense tbh, where did you hear it? As if the FIA are incapable of following where a wire goes to and from.

If the FIA really didn't know what the wires were for they can just remove them on the spot if Ferrari's explanation/demonstration wasn't good enough, no need for any head scratching. I thought the extra sensor was for the extra output from Ferrari's split battery design?

This is just what I read, extra output now that leads us down another tricky path.

If the FIA are on top of what Ferrari are doing why the need for the extra sensor?

The story goes that they think that it is such a complicated cheating system, that the FIA doesn't understand it. So obviously illegal I guess...

What one reads on internet gets ridiculous as time goes on, no wonder the world is getting dumber.

The specs of the system is submitted to the FIA for scrutiny also the FIA has the power to ask for explanation of anything they don't understand.

If they understand it then why the need to fit a secondary sensor?

Because Mercedes just publicly pointed out that the split battery could be abused in this way. If the FIA didn't then slap a sensor on it then Ferrari can just go ahead and do it even if they weren't before obviously.

So basically this has always been unmonitored on the Ferrari because the FIA never fully understood the system in the first place?

I don't think you're being particularly honest here. Several posters have taken issue with you claiming the accusations as fact and there have been a number of discussions about it. This thread would probably be less than half as long if you hadn't done so. But if you're backpedalling now and no longer trying to claim it's true then I guess we can move on

The stories are clearly true as Ferrari are under investigation, some of the conclusions however are unproven such as some kind of deal was done with Ferrari.

The only thing that's true is that the FIA is investigating and if that's what you had said initially we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But it's difficult to interpret things like "Well specifically they were using it to cheat in qualifying " as anything other than you making things up I'm afraid. If you didn't do things like that the conversations would go a lot more smoothly

No it didn't make it up this is what was being proposed and I was replying to someone that asked what benefit would Ferrari get from it.

I don't think you're being particularly honest here. Several posters have taken issue with you claiming the accusations as fact and there have been a number of discussions about it. This thread would probably be less than half as long if you hadn't done so. But if you're backpedalling now and no longer trying to claim it's true then I guess we can move on

The stories are clearly true as Ferrari are under investigation, some of the conclusions however are unproven such as some kind of deal was done with Ferrari.

What story is true?

And by conclusions you mean baseless rumours like with the extra oil tank that was treated as fact last year.

Maybe Ferrari said that the wires supply a seat heater to keep Vettel's bum nice and cosy, if you get my drift?

Maybe Ferrari did give an explanation that still left the stewards scratching their heads, it seems complicated enough for the necessity of a secondary sensor.

It just sounds like made up nonsense tbh, where did you hear it? As if the FIA are incapable of following where a wire goes to and from.

If the FIA really didn't know what the wires were for they can just remove them on the spot if Ferrari's explanation/demonstration wasn't good enough, no need for any head scratching. I thought the extra sensor was for the extra output from Ferrari's split battery design?

This is just what I read, extra output now that leads us down another tricky path.

If the FIA are on top of what Ferrari are doing why the need for the extra sensor?

Where did you read it though?

Well like I said now that Mercedes has run it up the pole they have to stick a sensor on it.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

The story goes that they think that it is such a complicated cheating system, that the FIA doesn't understand it. So obviously illegal I guess...

What one reads on internet gets ridiculous as time goes on, no wonder the world is getting dumber.

The specs of the system is submitted to the FIA for scrutiny also the FIA has the power to ask for explanation of anything they don't understand.

If they understand it then why the need to fit a secondary sensor?

Because Mercedes just publicly pointed out that the split battery could be abused in this way. If the FIA didn't then slap a sensor on it then Ferrari can just go ahead and do it even if they weren't before obviously.

So basically this has always been unmonitored on the Ferrari because the FIA never fully understood the system in the first place?

Yes there's been no monitoring of that loophole but there's also no suggestion from the FIA that Ferrari understood it could be done either as far as I know.

Because of the recent Sassi (ex Ferrari engine boss) signing to the same team that run it up the pole I can understand why folk would get suspicious though of course but unless they get caught then much like the oil burn situation there's not a lot to be done.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

I don't think you're being particularly honest here. Several posters have taken issue with you claiming the accusations as fact and there have been a number of discussions about it. This thread would probably be less than half as long if you hadn't done so. But if you're backpedalling now and no longer trying to claim it's true then I guess we can move on

The stories are clearly true as Ferrari are under investigation, some of the conclusions however are unproven such as some kind of deal was done with Ferrari.

The only thing that's true is that the FIA is investigating and if that's what you had said initially we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But it's difficult to interpret things like "Well specifically they were using it to cheat in qualifying " as anything other than you making things up I'm afraid. If you didn't do things like that the conversations would go a lot more smoothly

No it didn't make it up this is what was being proposed and I was replying to someone that asked what benefit would Ferrari get from it.

No, because then you'd say something like Ferrari may have been using it to cheat in qualifying, but instead you categorically stated they were using it. Please tell me you understand the difference

I don't think you're being particularly honest here. Several posters have taken issue with you claiming the accusations as fact and there have been a number of discussions about it. This thread would probably be less than half as long if you hadn't done so. But if you're backpedalling now and no longer trying to claim it's true then I guess we can move on

The stories are clearly true as Ferrari are under investigation, some of the conclusions however are unproven such as some kind of deal was done with Ferrari.

What story is true?

And by conclusions you mean baseless rumours like with the extra oil tank that was treated as fact last year.

Are Ferrari not under investigation?

Yes, because the FIA were asked too.

Much like the suspension query from Ferrari that put Red Bull and Mercedes under investigation. Or when the FIA were investigating the oil burn in Mercedes and Ferrari cars in Spain 2015.

It's not an indicator of guilt is it?

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

The only thing that's true is that the FIA is investigating and if that's what you had said initially we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But it's difficult to interpret things like "Well specifically they were using it to cheat in qualifying " as anything other than you making things up I'm afraid. If you didn't do things like that the conversations would go a lot more smoothly

No it didn't make it up this is what was being proposed and I was replying to someone that asked what benefit would Ferrari get from it.

No, because then you'd say something like Ferrari may have been using it to cheat in qualifying, but instead you categorically stated they were using it. Please tell me you understand the difference

I am sadly coming to the conclusion that he doesn't, Zoue. A fixation on painting Ferrari in the worst possible way, based on what he claims "heard" is the modus operandi it seems. Turn the tables to Merc, and watch the 180 degree about face.

The only thing that's true is that the FIA is investigating and if that's what you had said initially we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But it's difficult to interpret things like "Well specifically they were using it to cheat in qualifying " as anything other than you making things up I'm afraid. If you didn't do things like that the conversations would go a lot more smoothly

No it didn't make it up this is what was being proposed and I was replying to someone that asked what benefit would Ferrari get from it.

No, because then you'd say something like Ferrari may have been using it to cheat in qualifying, but instead you categorically stated they were using it. Please tell me you understand the difference

I am sadly coming to the conclusion that he doesn't, Zoue. A fixation on painting Ferrari in the worst possible way, based on what he claims "heard" is the modus operandi it seems. Turn the tables to Merc, and watch the 180 degree about face.

The only thing that's true is that the FIA is investigating and if that's what you had said initially we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But it's difficult to interpret things like "Well specifically they were using it to cheat in qualifying " as anything other than you making things up I'm afraid. If you didn't do things like that the conversations would go a lot more smoothly

No it didn't make it up this is what was being proposed and I was replying to someone that asked what benefit would Ferrari get from it.

No, because then you'd say something like Ferrari may have been using it to cheat in qualifying, but instead you categorically stated they were using it. Please tell me you understand the difference

I am sadly coming to the conclusion that he doesn't, Zoue. A fixation on painting Ferrari in the worst possible way, based on what he claims "heard" is the modus operandi it seems. Turn the tables to Merc, and watch the 180 degree about face.

... or put Lewis Hamilton in red?

Yup.... But I did not want to mention Lewis for fear of another 5 pages of this stuff.

Whiting noted that a senior Ferrari engine designer had moved to Mercedes this season and said former Ferrari technical head James Allison, now in a similar role at Mercedes, had raised concerns.

“The matter was exacerbated by unsubstantiatedspeculation that went through the paddock like wildfire,” explained Whiting who suggested any information that might have travelled from Ferrari to Mercedes was likely to have been outdated.

Todt, a former Ferrari boss, said he had first heard about the problem after the race in Baku and that any rivals with concerns should have aired them openly, “If a team has some doubts, they could have made a protest. It would be much more healthy rather than to manipulate the press to address the problem.”

No it didn't make it up this is what was being proposed and I was replying to someone that asked what benefit would Ferrari get from it.

No, because then you'd say something like Ferrari may have been using it to cheat in qualifying, but instead you categorically stated they were using it. Please tell me you understand the difference

I am sadly coming to the conclusion that he doesn't, Zoue. A fixation on painting Ferrari in the worst possible way, based on what he claims "heard" is the modus operandi it seems. Turn the tables to Merc, and watch the 180 degree about face.

... or put Lewis Hamilton in red?

Yup.... But I did not want to mention Lewis for fear of another 5 pages of this stuff.

Whiting noted that a senior Ferrari engine designer had moved to Mercedes this season and said former Ferrari technical head James Allison, now in a similar role at Mercedes, had raised concerns.

“The matter was exacerbated by unsubstantiatedspeculation that went through the paddock like wildfire,” explained Whiting who suggested any information that might have travelled from Ferrari to Mercedes was likely to have been outdated.

Todt, a former Ferrari boss, said he had first heard about the problem after the race in Baku and that any rivals with concerns should have aired them openly, “If a team has some doubts, they could have made a protest. It would be much more healthy rather than to manipulate the press to address the problem.”

Other reports confirm it was Mercedes that started the ball rolling

I have not jumped on this train as I have not seen sufficient evidence against Ferrari so far, but Whiting and Todt are surely not exactly the most reliable/ credible sources for counter-evidence either, given their long and rich history of cheating and lying ...

Whiting noted that a senior Ferrari engine designer had moved to Mercedes this season and said former Ferrari technical head James Allison, now in a similar role at Mercedes, had raised concerns.

“The matter was exacerbated by unsubstantiatedspeculation that went through the paddock like wildfire,” explained Whiting who suggested any information that might have travelled from Ferrari to Mercedes was likely to have been outdated.

Todt, a former Ferrari boss, said he had first heard about the problem after the race in Baku and that any rivals with concerns should have aired them openly, “If a team has some doubts, they could have made a protest. It would be much more healthy rather than to manipulate the press to address the problem.”

Other reports confirm it was Mercedes that started the ball rolling

I have not jumped on this train as I have not seen sufficient evidence against Ferrari so far, but Whiting and Todt are surely not exactly the most reliable/ credible sources for counter-evidence either, given their long and rich history of cheating and lying ...

Just saying.

But it’s beyond dispute that they’ve cleared Ferrari. They’re not simply giving an opinion on that. So if you want to keep believing they are cheating, knock yourself out. But it would be based on faith, not evidence

Whiting noted that a senior Ferrari engine designer had moved to Mercedes this season and said former Ferrari technical head James Allison, now in a similar role at Mercedes, had raised concerns.

“The matter was exacerbated by unsubstantiatedspeculation that went through the paddock like wildfire,” explained Whiting who suggested any information that might have travelled from Ferrari to Mercedes was likely to have been outdated.

Todt, a former Ferrari boss, said he had first heard about the problem after the race in Baku and that any rivals with concerns should have aired them openly, “If a team has some doubts, they could have made a protest. It would be much more healthy rather than to manipulate the press to address the problem.”

Other reports confirm it was Mercedes that started the ball rolling

I have not jumped on this train as I have not seen sufficient evidence against Ferrari so far, but Whiting and Todt are surely not exactly the most reliable/ credible sources for counter-evidence either, given their long and rich history of cheating and lying ...

Just saying.

But it’s beyond dispute that they’ve cleared Ferrari. They’re not simply giving an opinion on that. So if you want to keep believing they are cheating, knock yourself out. But it would be based on faith, not evidence

Whiting noted that a senior Ferrari engine designer had moved to Mercedes this season and said former Ferrari technical head James Allison, now in a similar role at Mercedes, had raised concerns.

“The matter was exacerbated by unsubstantiatedspeculation that went through the paddock like wildfire,” explained Whiting who suggested any information that might have travelled from Ferrari to Mercedes was likely to have been outdated.

Todt, a former Ferrari boss, said he had first heard about the problem after the race in Baku and that any rivals with concerns should have aired them openly, “If a team has some doubts, they could have made a protest. It would be much more healthy rather than to manipulate the press to address the problem.”

Other reports confirm it was Mercedes that started the ball rolling

I have not jumped on this train as I have not seen sufficient evidence against Ferrari so far, but Whiting and Todt are surely not exactly the most reliable/ credible sources for counter-evidence either, given their long and rich history of cheating and lying ...

Just saying.

So the folks who looked at the car and said nothing is wrong with it and then release their findings are lying and cheating, this new world of alternative facts is quite interesting.

Whiting noted that a senior Ferrari engine designer had moved to Mercedes this season and said former Ferrari technical head James Allison, now in a similar role at Mercedes, had raised concerns.

“The matter was exacerbated by unsubstantiatedspeculation that went through the paddock like wildfire,” explained Whiting who suggested any information that might have travelled from Ferrari to Mercedes was likely to have been outdated.

Todt, a former Ferrari boss, said he had first heard about the problem after the race in Baku and that any rivals with concerns should have aired them openly, “If a team has some doubts, they could have made a protest. It would be much more healthy rather than to manipulate the press to address the problem.”

Other reports confirm it was Mercedes that started the ball rolling

I have not jumped on this train as I have not seen sufficient evidence against Ferrari so far, but Whiting and Todt are surely not exactly the most reliable/ credible sources for counter-evidence either, given their long and rich history of cheating and lying ...

Just saying.

So the folks who looked at the car and said nothing is wrong with it and then release their findings are lying and cheating, this new world of alternative facts is quite interesting.

What I wrote was that both Whiting and Todt each have rich history of lying and cheating in racing - which is a fact. My conclusion was that they are not the most credible sources, which I do not think is far stretched tbh.

Whiting noted that a senior Ferrari engine designer had moved to Mercedes this season and said former Ferrari technical head James Allison, now in a similar role at Mercedes, had raised concerns.

“The matter was exacerbated by unsubstantiatedspeculation that went through the paddock like wildfire,” explained Whiting who suggested any information that might have travelled from Ferrari to Mercedes was likely to have been outdated.

Todt, a former Ferrari boss, said he had first heard about the problem after the race in Baku and that any rivals with concerns should have aired them openly, “If a team has some doubts, they could have made a protest. It would be much more healthy rather than to manipulate the press to address the problem.”

Other reports confirm it was Mercedes that started the ball rolling

Shame that all it takes is unsubstantiated speculation for some people, as also this thread demonstrates.

Whiting noted that a senior Ferrari engine designer had moved to Mercedes this season and said former Ferrari technical head James Allison, now in a similar role at Mercedes, had raised concerns.

“The matter was exacerbated by unsubstantiatedspeculation that went through the paddock like wildfire,” explained Whiting who suggested any information that might have travelled from Ferrari to Mercedes was likely to have been outdated.

Todt, a former Ferrari boss, said he had first heard about the problem after the race in Baku and that any rivals with concerns should have aired them openly, “If a team has some doubts, they could have made a protest. It would be much more healthy rather than to manipulate the press to address the problem.”

Other reports confirm it was Mercedes that started the ball rolling

I have not jumped on this train as I have not seen sufficient evidence against Ferrari so far, but Whiting and Todt are surely not exactly the most reliable/ credible sources for counter-evidence either, given their long and rich history of cheating and lying ...

Just saying.

So the folks who looked at the car and said nothing is wrong with it and then release their findings are lying and cheating, this new world of alternative facts is quite interesting.

What I wrote was that both Whiting and Todt each have rich history of lying and cheating in racing - which is a fact. My conclusion was that they are not the most credible sources, which I do not think is far stretched tbh.

Maybe you try reading my original post again?

They don't have to be. They're not giving an opinion on something, but making a formal announcement on behalf of the FIA. The investigation is over as nothing illegal was found. Their credibility is not relevant in this instance

Last edited by Zoue on Sun May 27, 2018 7:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think you're ignoring the "careful" wording in that statement (you only quoted general statements)

So, from the quoted link ;

".... that Ferrari’s system was more complicated than that used by rivals but he now accepted everything was above board...." note the "now" - it does not comment on what it was at Baku.

"..... the duty of the competitor to satisfy the FIA that their car complies at all times and they were having difficulty satisfying us,” he added. “Here, we are now satisfied.” -- AGAIN, the ambiguous "now".

"...... they took some measures to make sure we understood it more and that we were seeing things that we were happy with.” -- only happy AFTER the measures were taken, why ?

I'm sorry, I have no idea as to whether the system was legal in Baku, but neither IT WOULD SEEM do the FIA - they are only saying that the Ferrari system is o.k. now.

I think you're ignoring the "careful" wording in that statement (you only quoted general statements)

So, from the quoted link ;

".... that Ferrari’s system was more complicated than that used by rivals but he now accepted everything was above board...." note the "now" - it does not comment on what it was at Baku.

"..... the duty of the competitor to satisfy the FIA that their car complies at all times and they were having difficulty satisfying us,” he added. “Here, we are now satisfied.” -- AGAIN, the ambiguous "now".

"...... they took some measures to make sure we understood it more and that we were seeing things that we were happy with.” -- only happy AFTER the measures were taken, why ?

I'm sorry, I have no idea as to whether the system was legal in Baku, but neither IT WOULD SEEM do the FIA - they are only saying that the Ferrari system is o.k. now.

.

I'm not ignoring it, but I think you are completely misjudging it.

He's simply saying that initially they did not understand the explanations Ferrari gave, but now they are happy that everything is above board. There's nothing in there that could be interpreted as meaning that it may not have been in previous races. It just means that Ferrari had to do a lot of explaining of what was clearly a very complicated system.

There is no ambiguity there. Unless you look for it. And the fact that both Whiting and Todt expressed frustration with the way rumours were spreading before they had a chance to investigate properly strongly suggests that the FIA at least have no concerns about the past.

You're basically reinforcing what I stated in my original post, that nothing will satisfy those who see conspiracy around every corner

I think you're ignoring the "careful" wording in that statement (you only quoted general statements)

So, from the quoted link ;

".... that Ferrari’s system was more complicated than that used by rivals but he now accepted everything was above board...." note the "now" - it does not comment on what it was at Baku.

"..... the duty of the competitor to satisfy the FIA that their car complies at all times and they were having difficulty satisfying us,” he added. “Here, we are now satisfied.” -- AGAIN, the ambiguous "now".

"...... they took some measures to make sure we understood it more and that we were seeing things that we were happy with.” -- only happy AFTER the measures were taken, why ?

I'm sorry, I have no idea as to whether the system was legal in Baku, but neither IT WOULD SEEM do the FIA - they are only saying that the Ferrari system is o.k. now.

.

Well SkyF1 just confirmed it was James Allison and Lorenzo Sassi both fired by Ferrari that brought it to the FIA's attention on behalf of Mercedes.

Disgruntled former employees, it's a stain on both their reputations and also shows the engine guy who was fired does not really know his onions.

He's simply saying that initially they did not understand the explanations Ferrari gave, but now they are happy that everything is above board. There's nothing in there that could be interpreted as meaning that it may not have been in previous races. It just means that Ferrari had to do a lot of explaining of what was clearly a very complicated system.

There is no ambiguity there. .....

.

NO. Read the quotes I selected. The FIA are ONLY commenting on the present situation AFTER the modifications.

He's simply saying that initially they did not understand the explanations Ferrari gave, but now they are happy that everything is above board. There's nothing in there that could be interpreted as meaning that it may not have been in previous races. It just means that Ferrari had to do a lot of explaining of what was clearly a very complicated system.

There is no ambiguity there. .....

.

NO. Read the quotes I selected. The FIA are ONLY commenting on the present situation AFTER the modifications.

There is NO statement saying that the Baku set-up was legal.

Try reading.

.

Try not to be so rude.

I am reading. They simply state that it took them a while to fully understand the system as it was so complicated. There is no inference that anything was changed, therefore no reason to believe that the system was different in Baku (or indeed anywhere else). All the statements are consistent with it being purely the complexity of the system that led to the length of time taken to understand it. You have to really be looking for it to judge anything untoward has been going on.

In fact, your statement about "the modifications" proves my point. There is nothing in the article which even mentions modifications

I am not being rude - I am merely pointing out that you are mistaken and should read the quotes properly and stop misleading people.

You say "... There is no inference that anything was changed ..." - this is directly wrong. The FIA statement states that their examination was AFTER modifications.

THAT is why I suggest that you read the statement properly.

You claim that the article doesn't even mention "modifications" which proves you cannot read properly (see; "... they took some measures ...")

.

sigh.

"they took some measures to make sure we understood it more" is the quote. That's not stating that modifications were made, just that Ferrari did something to help the FIA understand. What that something is is anybody's guess, but it could simply mean they gave the FIA access to some code, or they took the system apart in front of them, etc. You're really taking 2+2 and making 5 here. Assuming modifications from that sentence is just what you want to see, but that's not necessarily what's there

I am not being rude - I am merely pointing out that you are mistaken and should read the quotes properly and stop misleading people.

You say "... There is no inference that anything was changed ..." - this is directly wrong. The FIA statement states that their examination was AFTER modifications.

THAT is why I suggest that you read the statement properly.

You claim that the article doesn't even mention "modifications" which proves you cannot read properly (see; "... they took some measures ...")

.

sigh.

"they took some measures to make sure we understood it more" is the quote. That's not stating that modifications were made, just that Ferrari did something to help the FIA understand. What that something is is anybody's guess, but it could simply mean they gave the FIA access to some code, or they took the system apart in front of them, etc. You're really taking 2+2 and making 5 here. Assuming modifications from that sentence is just what you want to see, but that's not necessarily what's there

Exactly... nowhere is it stating that Ferrari made changes to NOW satisfy the FIA.... only that they now Understand the function and find no fault with it. At least that is how I see it.

I am not being rude - I am merely pointing out that you are mistaken and should read the quotes properly and stop misleading people.

You say "... There is no inference that anything was changed ..." - this is directly wrong. The FIA statement states that their examination was AFTER modifications.

THAT is why I suggest that you read the statement properly.

You claim that the article doesn't even mention "modifications" which proves you cannot read properly (see; "... they took some measures ...")

.

sigh.

"they took some measures to make sure we understood it more" is the quote. That's not stating that modifications were made, just that Ferrari did something to help the FIA understand. What that something is is anybody's guess, but it could simply mean they gave the FIA access to some code, or they took the system apart in front of them, etc. You're really taking 2+2 and making 5 here. Assuming modifications from that sentence is just what you want to see, but that's not necessarily what's there

Exactly... nowhere is it stating that Ferrari made changes to NOW satisfy the FIA.... only that they now Understand the function and find no fault with it. At least that is how I see it.

I don't think it's possible to see it any other way. Unless you really want to...